Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
Cheers big man
'wahwahwah he shouldnt have got hit, it should have gone through proper procedure wahwahwah'. Get a grip ya wet cunts.
with no job, future, life or friends
Is obviously why you've made a success of your thirty years of life
You guys should try it.
If you behave like a wido, it's also known as 'going wide'. He's pure wide as i Clyde, man.
Wido = Wide = Wide of the mark = Out of order
Not sure I can put it any other way, that might be a bit wide of me.
gave him a train ticket to go to dundee (his life dream) but the poor tyke got on the wrong train and used up his ticket, so he tried to hop on the right one quietly.
:( :( :( :( :(
RIP little guy, you're in dundee now.
I also wonder how eager he'd have been to intervene against someone who wasn't half his size. SHADES OF GREY, PEOPLE.
I wonder how eager he'd have been to intervene had the person actually been half his size i.e. been a woman. hmm interesting.
Seems a bit unnecessary.
i see no problem here. let's move along.
and some woman in the back quietly pipes in "There's no need for that..."
will look good if the kid ever takes it to court...
Still, I guess it saved time waiting for the BTP to come along and pull him off.
where's the assualt? all i see is a young gentleman getting forcibly removed from a train after commiting a crime.
This is why the Tube staff (for example) can't actually forcibly stop any fare dodgers leaping the barriers and need the British Transport Police to deal with anyone physically.
Much as I think the little shit got exactly what he deserved, in the eyes of the law, the Big Man very possiubly overstepped the mark. The definition of 'assault' very much encompasses this situation. whether or not the fiscal's office could be arsed prosecuting it is another matter entirely.
forcably removed, the law is the same in this regard.
It is true that the big man is more forcable than he needs to be, but the fare dodger is showing that he is up for it in his unreasonable persistance so it seems matched.
although it is weird how insistant the fare dodger is......almost to the point where you might think that he actualy does believe that he has a right to travel...his persistance (when he is obviously rumbled) is a bit baffling
It's why if you make a citizen's arrest, you can technically be done for assault. All of your actions must be proportionate and not cause fear or alarm. I'm not debating the merits of this creaky, just telling you how it is.
yuou've used the words that solve it for me 'different threshold' ....makes perfect sense.....'the same law does still apply but with a different threshold' I understand now
I bow to your superior knowledge.
which is a shame because that kid was a little brat who got what was coming to him (from the evidence provided, he could have honestly accidently bought a single rather than a return. i mean, they are often like 10p -£1 different, and he might just not understand the ticket system, but i doubt it)
especially when someone says 'look he's oot, he's oot of the train'
the wee bawbag
every train should come with a big lad
a 'faggoty wee jobby'. It was quite excellent.
Let's definitely have that debate now.
I remember SO many times being on a night bus and hearing the engine futt out and the lights click off and on, followed by:
[Get off the bus: you've not paid etc]
[fuck off I'm staying here]
[Well I'm not moving until the police come]
[fuck off I'll take it up with them]
To no-one in particular; [fuckin' cunt who does he think he is...fuckin' police..I'm stayin' HERE etc etc etc]
Eventually either babylon mandem show up or everyone just has to wait 10 minutes until he's had a little cry and fucks off.
Although saying that, I once did see a BEG MAN go downstairs to do the honours...He was as big as the fucking stairs...didn't see what happened but the lights came back on and the bus moved off.
tbh I'm usually cunted if I'm ever on a nightbus anyway. 'sall good.
Join us next week.
That's ok right?
The big youth comes across about as well as the fare-dodger. Seems to be revelling in the "legitimacy" of lobbing someone off a train.
Being late is better than slamming some kid into the platform. No matter how much of a nobcheese he's being. It's not like it's the first time a train was late.
I don't think it's a good policy to stop the train and then indirectly put the onus on passengers to encourage the lad to get off the train. Because there usually will someone who takes that as a justification to get physical. And that someone will probably quite enjoy it.
I bet the big bloke felt great after though.
he was "reveling" in it? the guy just quickly did it and then sat straight back down without saying a word. maybe he just wanted to go home?
the kid was acting like a dick. so he was forcibly removed. it's not the end of the world. you act like a dick, you'll get treated like a dick.
Asked if the conductor wanted him off, then immediately pick him up, shoved him about, then threw him pretty hard off the train.
I'm sure he did just want to get home, like all the other people on the train, who sat there and were either prepared to wait for the police, not interested in forcibly removing another member of the public from the train, or not physically capable of it.
Just because someone is being a dick, and just because a ticket inspector on a train says so, it doesn't mean you can go around manhandling people. It's especially cuntish if you're about 18 stone and the other person is sitting down when you put your hands on them.
It's not his place to remove the kid from the train. That's why we have police. If you have to experience a delay to your journey to ensure that these matters are dealt with safely and legally, then so fucking be it. That's infinitely preferable than someone getting injured (which looked quite possible) because some guy reckons he can handle these matters himself.
But you're right, it's not the end of the world. And neither is sitting for twenty minutes while the police turn up.
"picked him up, shoved him about, threw him hard off the train" give me a break. the kid was resisting, he just pushed him to the door and then pushed him to the ground. it was over in a few seconds. the kid was fine, he got straight back up and tried to plow through again.
why should they wait 20 minutes (if they're lucky) for a police officer when somebody stronger can just make him get off the train? like i said, none of that would have been necessary if the kid wasn't behaving like a massively anti social bellend.
i think you're confusing the public taking a serious/even semi-serious crime into their own hands (not acceptable) with some little scrote being a scrote and being pushed off of a train he had no right to be on.
if you choose to ignore large swathes of what I've already said.
And don't get me wrong, that kid would have annoyed the fuck out of me too. But it should have been the police doing the shoving and restraining and whatnot.
The kid have every right to resist the guy grabbing him and shoving him off the train. It's not his place to do that. Regardless of the situation between the kid and the ticket inspector.
He's not necessarily trained in safe methods of restraining people, nor does he appear capable of safely ejecting this kid from the train. He's just a big fella that fancied getting involved.
"why should they wait 20 minutes (if they're lucky) for a police officer when somebody stronger can just make him get off the train?"
Because we live in a civilised country with a police force who are trained to deal with this sort of shit.
Had the kid been attacking people or threatening to attack people, I'd be fine with someone stepping in. I'd expect it to happen. The only possible reason this guy had for wading in and potentially injuring the little git or anyone nearby was because he couldn't be arsed to wait for the police.
He wasn't defending or protecting anyone.
Incidents like this, especially when they are widely applauded and described as "someone getting what they deserved" sit at the top of a slippery slope toward vigilantiism.
If certain people think all they need is permission from the perceived "victim" to put their hands on people, they'll fucking go for it.
you are overreacting to something that is really not a huge deal.
and when you say things like "slippery slope to vigilantism" it makes it pretty hard to take you seriously given the context of what we're actually talking about here
train is hardly an overreaction champ.
The bit of what I said that you've quoted is 100% true. He did pick him up, he did shove him and he did throw him off the train.
The argument here is whether that's the right thing to do.
The bit you ignore, that is odds with what you're making out I said, "Being late is better than slamming some kid into the platform. No matter how much of a nobcheese he's being. It's not like it's the first time a train was late."
the kid committed a very minor offense and was dealt with in a swift to-the-point manner. it's not about him "getting what he deserved" or anything like that, it's about solving the very simple problem of this kid refusing to get off the train he had no right to be on.
who gives a fuck if the man had any legal right to put his hands on him, he didn't "rough him up" or punch him or even "slam him to the platform" like you keep saying, he just tossed him off the train with exactly the right amount of force.
very silly problem dealt with easily. it's not like he mugged somebody or anything even close to a crime of that nature.
is just a massively gay thing to say
You sound like David Cameron
Your making judgements on this guys character based on what you percieve him to be thinking in this video. The guy used the neccessary force to get the guy off the train, was that his responsibility? No, but i bet everyone was appreciative of it though.
is what I said. Not revelling in the act. It appears that he's made the decision to chuck him off the train before he's stood up, all he needed was permission from the "authority figure" in the situation.
Meaning as soon as the man in the uniform says "yes pelase," he's got his hands on him.
I don't have a clue what he's thinking. But I do know he missed a few opportunities to resolve the situation without his hands. May not have worked, but I reckon a guy that big could have talked him into leaving the train.
I also think the force he used was a bit OTT. I may be misreading the situation, but he seems to throw him backwards onto the platform.
The last thing the kid says before the guy gets up is
"Fine, I'll sit here and I'll wait (for the police)".
I reckon that's fair enough if someone has said they're calling the police.
The conductor made the situation worse and I'm fairly sure when the guy says "do you want me to get him off for you?" he should have said...
"No thanks, the police are on the way."
The kid thinks his bag is still on the train, tries to get it back and he definitely gets thrown backwards.
So I reckon the big man should have just sat in his seat, and only stepped in if the kid started threatening people.
I really hope it turns out that the conductor was mistaken.
Along a similar vein, but with a little slapstick thrown in
'people who adopt a scottish dialect when commenting on this video when they normally type in plain english'
eg. "wit a wee wido dinnae mess wae us scottash we'll set aboot ye. SCOATLANDDAHJKRCVLK"
(ps. thought the guy was a far too heavy handed but otherwise i am in agreement with his course of action)
...but, frankly, it's not a patch on this fella : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2waIvp265CM
There", said the mayor. "Cheers, big man.
BIG MAN had no right to lay hands on him.
It wasn't right for the conductor to put the decision to the other passengers.
If the kid doesn't want to pay, you tell him that the police will be waiting at the station.
Public transport is overpriced, you may say it's because of fare dodgers like that kid.
It should be cheaper.
If i was on the train, i would've told the conductor to get the train moving.
He can try and make the kid buy a ticket, but he cannot condone nor take irresponsibility for any harm that comes to passengers on his train.
Technically, the lad was assaulted.
TAKING MATTERS INTO YOUR OWN HANDS
This is kinda different though.
Fare dodging is something which happens daily.
If the public were to start hossing fare dodgers out of trains, it could be dangerous for everyone.
Also, i couldn't care less if someone was bunking the train.
IMO it's victim-less crime.
As i said already, if the argument went on for too long, i would've asked the conductor to follow protocol, and get the train moving.
If i was BIG MAN and reallly reallly wanted to get the train moving, i would've politely asked if their was a problem.
Knelt down beside the kid, and asked the kid if he would please leave the carriage.
I would then whisper in his ear instructions to either get off, then get back on again, walk down the carriage and hide in the toilet, or just wait for the next train.
If he then spat in my face or hit me, i would drag him down the carriage by his nostrils, take his jacket from his back, and place him on the platform.
We have to give people chances. & react accordingly.
It'll be (hmmm) interesting to see how closely aligned the DiS equivalent of the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade turns out to be in relation to the radio version of the Speak your Branes/Mail comments section?
not sure how many else. did it make you wet the bed or something?
Any deleted posts are nothing to do with me. You could try reading the thread TheWza started about it, if it's not too taxing for you.
This thread was getting boring anyway.
I know you didn't do it, but one of the more argumentative mods with a liking for banning and deleting uses it pretty frequently,
Apparently the kid did have a ticket and the only reason he tried to get back on the train was to retrieve his laptop bag and the rest of his belongings.
maybe they'd just given that to him.
Dunno about the ticket. Looked like he was giving the guard the wrong part (outgoing, not return) of a return BUT he wasn't saying that, which is what any person with half a brain would have explained.
and most probably was a little on the drunk side, so I can imagine he wasn't thinking clearly enough to know what he was saying.
he keeps his phone IN HIS BAG?!!?!?
"Sam was sitting exams today, but salesman Lenny Main, 43, from Falkirk, called for Mr Pollock to face assault charges. Mr Main your time would be better spent learning your ignorant foul mouthed son some manners. Well done Alan Pollock no way should he be charged with assault."
"His parents should be disciplined for letting there Kid talk to Elders like that.. the Kid clearly has no respect and Mr Big man taught him a little about that.."
"How can this wee clowns father no see his son was acting like a bawbag, giving it berti big bollocks talk and aw that, now he's playing the victim card, fanny"
I dont mind, I just need to know if i need to censor myself more.
It is very likely that i do need to do so, but i need to know how and why, otherwise im just guessing
"Too many people are let down by lazy cowardice and the sort of dog-eat-dog attitude that contributes towards the erosion of a sense of responsibility and community."
Yeah, cause it's more responsible and community-minded to have a fight on a train. Vigilante investment bankers/firemen (which is he? both?) picking fights with student scrotes is in no way dog-eat-dog. Sheesh.
Good shoehorning of completely irrelevant personal experience (a mugging and sexual harassment) in there, too. Jan Moir would be proud.
A ticket inspector was stabbed in the back after he stopped two suspected fare dodgers.
"He didn't know what was going on. He just wanted to get stuck in" .......
"We like to belive we can put all the pieces together in our heads "